ALEXANDRU IOAN CUZAUNIVERSITYphdthesis.uaic.ro/PhDThesis/Shibly, Zouheir, The... · Stintific...

"ALEXANDRU IOAN CUZA"UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF EDUCATION SCIENCE AND PSYCHOLOGY

Stintific Coordinator: Prof.Constantin Cucos.

Candidate : Shibly Zouheir

I

ABSTRACT

Iasi, 10.12.014

1- Abstract--------------------------------------------------------------------page -7

2 - Introduction--------------------------------------------------------------page 11

Chapter 2-

Literature Survey

2 - The origin of the word constructivism and the educational approach ------

-page 14

2-1- Why do we need constructivist teaching in the era of a flood of

knowledge and -development of technology---------------------------------------

page 16

2-2 -Constructivism for and against-------------------------------------------------

page 29

2-3- The difference between the constructivist and frontal teaching method--

page 31

2-4 the development of the theory of teaching-------------------------------------

page 35

Chapter- 3

The place of the teacher and the student in teaching in the constructivist

approach.

3 -the class room community-- -------------------------------------------------------

page 52

3-1 How they make learning----------------------------------------------------------

page 55

3-2 Class negotiations-----------------------------------------------------------------

page 59

3-3 what is the dialogue--------- ------------------------------------------------------

page 60

Chapter- 4; From constructivist thinking to the structuring of knowledge

4- Thinking strategies of a high order-----------------------------------------------

page 63

4-1 Guide to constructivist thinking-------------------------------------------------

page 66

4-2 the process of structuring knowledge and arrangement in our brain-------

page 79

3-4 Teaching methods in Israel-page----------------------------------------------

page 88

4- 4 The connection between constructive mouthed and the pupils

achievement-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

page 89

4-5 Principles of the constructivist approach generally--------------------------

page 90

4-6 Principles of the constructivist teaching which will be applied in this

study--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

page91

Chapter -5 the methodic of the study

5 The goal of the study and its conjectures-----------------------------------------

page 94

5-1 The study questions---------------------------------------------------------------

page 97

Chapter 6-

6- The results of the study ------------------------------------------------------------

page100

6-1 qualitative analysis---------------------------------------------------------------

page 111

6-2 The study procedure results and discussion and conclusions----------------

page 112

6-3 Continuation and research Opinion and recommendations -- -------------- -

page 118

Bibliography --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -

page122

Appendix

1-Questionnaire ------------------------------------------------------------------------

page-132

2- Building a computerized lesson-----------------------------------------------

page134

3- Test in biology for 10th grade----------------------------------------------------

page137

4 - out puts pss------------------------------------------------------------------------

page140

5- Declaration of responsibility-------------------------------------------------------

page 158

6- Resume-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

page159

Table 1, In this section, the study results of variables description will be

presented. page-101

Table 2, describes the male and female pupils who participated in the study:

page-102

Table 3: gender differences attitudes to meaningful learning page-103

Table 4: the difference between the control group compared to experiment

group in the educational achievements -104


group in the higher order thinking- pages -105


group in in pupils attitudes to meaningful learning—pages106

Table 7: correlations between pupil's educational achievement and high

order thinking in the class--------- pages107

Table 8: correlations between pupil's educational achievement and pupil's

attitudes to meaningful learning—page-108

Table 9: Correlations between pupil's attitudes to meaningful learning and

their high order thinking ability- page-109

Qualitative analysis page

Based on teacher interview who taught by constructive learning the study

revealed two main categories:-- page-129

Shibly zouheir

doctoral degree

"ALEXANDRU IOAN CUZA"UNIVERSITY, IASI

FACULTY OF EDUCATION SCIENCE AND PSYCHOLOGY, 2014

Structure of the thesis:

Introduction,Six- Chapters,conclusion and reference, –bibliography 121-

sources, 6 appendixes, 158 pages of text, 9 tables, key words: specialize in

constructivism, constructivist teaching, significant learning, dialogue,

cooperative learning, from the whole to the part, gaining active experience,

negotiations.

Study field: The study was carried out in Kaabiya High School in 10th and

11th grades, Bosmat Tivon High School served as a control, the experiment

was held in Kaabiya High School in which we implemented four principles

of a constructivist teaching method, on the other hand in the control school

they taught in a frontal teaching method, the students in the experiment

school passed a contents examination and filled in questionnaires, in the

control school they only filled in questionnaires, in this study there was

mainly use of a quantitative research method.

The goal of the study: to improve the students' achievements in the various

subjects (in this study in the field of sciences) under the assumption that the

students learn in a frontal teaching method, in which they are required to

memorize the study material and mostly they find difficulty in the learning

process, therefore this study comes in order to examine the connection

between constructivist learning and students' achievements, and according to

the results to increase the use of this teaching method.

Actually research : The study goals: this is a study which was designed to

investigate significant teaching which obtains significant learning, it is

considered in our days as a hit, as the teachers did not give up the use of an

ancient frontal teaching method.

Constructivist teaching is considered as the hope of the future and it is

capable of causing a revolution in the perception of the teachers and students

of the learning process.

The meaning of the theory is: use of active teaching in which the student is

active and gains experience in learning, it advances the process of

connecting new knowledge with old knowledge, and causes profound

understanding of the study contents.

The meaning of the study from a practical point of view and use of the

results: the results of the study showed a significant connection between

students' achievements and a constructivist teaching method and also change

in the perception of the teachers and students of the learning process, and

this can cause a revolution in teaching and learning, from a practical point of

view it is possible to expect that over time in the implementation of this

method, that the students will reduce the time that they "hold a pen", in

order for them to write what the teacher says until a minimum, and the

teachers will start quickly to feel satisfaction in lesson time as the students

work on their tasks, and they are required less and less to intervene and the

result is a new role of teachers as guides.

At a national level :the use of this teaching method, is capable of saving

time in government expenses on teaching as correct teaching in which the

student is active according to the significant teaching method helps him to

understand the material well, and thus after time there will be fewer and

fewer students who will find difficulty in understanding the study materials

in all the subjects and especially in the field of sciences.

Following the increase of the students' difficulties in Israel and in the world

in understanding the study contents and their low achievements, we have

been witnesses in the last two decades to a constant attempt on the part of

those leading in the field of education to promote learning with the goal of

raising the students achievements. As it is known the traditional way

practiced for change of achievements is allocation of further resources in

education and the result is more hours of traditional teaching. This

intervention indeed supplies more school hours and it is reasonable to

suppose that there will be a small rise in students' achievements, but there is

still no treatment of the central problem. As it is known in a frontal lesson,

the teacher stands in most of the lessons before his students and delivers

knowledge to them, whereas his students are requested to sit and listen,

without their being partners in the learning process. Indeed in this way they

can recall by memorization items of information which are not connected to

the knowledge existing in their brain, but the lifespan of this knowledge is

short as it was not rooted by linkage to the existing knowledge

Apart from this, the students got used to holding a pen, in order to write

down every piece of information which the teacher delivers. Perpetuation of

this method means perpetuation of the passivity of the students, and

hardening the role of the teacher who needs to continue to hold the source of

knowledge and be "the conductor of the chorus" and the result is more

memorization and less comprehension and analysis in the contents under

these circumstances. I decided in 2010 to investigate this subject in order to

turn the job of teacher into an instructor of learners, and to change the

conception of the learning process with students "from holders of pens" to

holders of knowledge and learning skills, whilst the quantities of knowledge

are only being piled up.

The word construct: it means structuring knowledge, it originated in the

constructivism from the constructivist movement which emerged in Russia

after the communist revolution which occurred in the years 1917-1925 and

identified with the ideology of revolution, the artists declared then that they

strove for "communist expression of material structures", and that the basis

for their world was "scientific communism", the constructivist artists strove

to create a new art with the help of plastic art and architecture so that it

would suit the needs and ambitions of society, therefore the ruling opinion

was that the artist must know the materials which he uses from close, and

even learn about their traits in personal experience in order for them to know

how to use them. This reference to art as produce and to the artist as a

worker, derives from the convention, which prevailed in the communist

world, that right to existence is only for somebody who works and produces

material things.

Constructivism is an overall name of a philosophical, pedagogic

sociological, linguistic and methodological approach. A common

denominator of all these approaches is that knowledge is built and is not

transferred or develops, there is no doubt that a very inclusive argument is

concerned here which is explained and interpreted in many ways.

Constructivism is considered as a very fluid mixture of theories and

ideologies- Harpaz (2000) in Hadas, N. (1996(, therefore it is impossible to

derive one teaching strategy from the constructivist approach, despite what

was said.

It is important for constructivism to take an interest in faulty conceptions of

students and describe their thinking methods, likewise it is important for

them to know that Piaget is considered as part of the constructivist heritage.

The psychological stream is considered as having the biggest meaning in the

field of teaching and learning, constructivism deals with the question how

students learn, an answer to this question is found in the assumption that

knowledge is not delivered or develops but is built in the consciousness of

the learner with the help of concepts and patterns which are found in his

consciousness, this approach is found to be in total contrast to the

behaviorist approach which sees in the learner as somebody absorbing

stimuli and reacting.

It is important to note that Piaget is considered as the greatest founder of this

approach, he used at the time a vocabulary when only a few words from his

vocabulary sound like useful words in the modern constructivist approach,

constructivism deals with learning and not with teaching, the argument of

constructivism is that knowledge is not transferred but is built by patterns

opposed to the conception of the teacher as a

conveyor. Harpaz (2008) in Hadas, N. (1996(, dealt with this conflict and

said “that anyone who thinks that the learner is like a blank page and

learning takes place by one side who transmits and another side which

absorbs, 'is sick in his sick mind' ", he offers to change the conception, that

only one side transmits and claims that both sides need to be active and the

side which is considered as absorbing does not absorb but builds the

knowledge.

According to Dr. Carmela Nesher, Dewey compared (1906) the learning

process to food which is stored in a refrigerator, which one only stores and is

not capable of preparing savories from it, this is what happens in the

learning process when the teacher delivers material to the student and it is

not connected to the existing knowledge, as he does not know what it is

possible to do with it. The knowledge stays in his memory for a short period

and is forgotten, accordingly the correct conception is that the head of the

student is not suitable to be "an empty refrigerator which the teacher needs

to fill", but the teachers must be a guide and instructor in order for the

student to be able to use the knowledge he acquired, and if we will return to

the comparison which Dewey made so this means to prepare "savories from

the food in the refrigerator", as otherwise there is no more point in our days

in storing much knowledge, as it anyway is stored in huge quantities and the

seeker of knowledge will only need to click on the search engine on the

internet.

According to what was said above the interest of teaching in our days is not

any more in what the teacher prepares, but in what the teacher causes the

student to do.

(Parkins, 1992, within Carmela Nesher). Therefore the magic words

according to this approach are instruction of the teacher and activeness of

the student, and in order for the student to be active and self- satisfied the

teacher need to know the characteristics of his students, and not to treat them

equally, as heterogeneous classes are concerned which place pedagogic

challenges before the teacher in everything connected to management of a

class. Therefore there is no escape from considering the various starting

points of his students in everything connected to differences in levels of

thinking, in positions and values, various knowledge bases, learning style,

personal preferences, talents etc., and to moderate his teaching method

according to these characteristics. Hadas, N. (1996),

difference between the constructivist and frontal teaching method The

authors describe the forms of technology and the components of hardware

and software which are necessary in the classroom in order to practice the

activities which the book contains. They also describe the study process, the

function of the teacher and student, and methods of assessment of the

learning process. Thus, the internet can be used to enable students to

construct sophisticated knowledge bases. It promotes exploration and

students can access rare information on the internet, generate and construct

information by creating and designing internet sites, and deliver and transfer

knowledge by means of the internet. These activities which use the

instrument of the internet take advantage of all five traits of meaningful

learning. The internet can be used as a learning instrument which enables

students to construct knowledge and create learning communities. The

participatory characteristic is the most prominent characteristic in this aspect

of the new constructivist theory. The students are induced to participate by

themselves in the lesson and be active in it.

Video is one of the instruments used as a technology in order to enhance

constructivist learning. Whereas in the frontal traditional method, film and

video are used only when the students are

to digest information. Thus this practice must involve the students being

active, constructive, intentional and cooperative. This creation can involve

newsrooms, talk shows, documentaries, theater and video conferencing.

Also, as technology is the instrument and constructivist learning the

methodology, assessment of the learning occurs not after the study has taken

place but simultaneously with it. Rubrics can be used to assess learning.

Technology does not instruct students, students only learn when they build

the knowledge and gain conception through experience. Also, understanding

is not created by means of absorption of the words of a teacher or

technological tool, but through students' active interface with a teacher or

technological tool.

Thus the authors claim that educational reform and change should be

implemented, and post- modernist cognition should be accepted. The

traditional format of teaching should not be abandoned, but the new

constructivist format should be accepted. The book also treats the subject of

future forms of education and future development of the (constructivist)

theory of education. There are significant issues to be treated as to what is

the best system for educating students. How can knowledge and critical

thinking be used in the field of education?

The constructivist theory imposes the greatest burden on the target of the

educational process, the student, rather than on the supplier of the

information, the teacher and the technological tools. Computers are the key

to helping students. The principal technological items used in the book are:

video, hypermedia, email chat, bulletin boards and simulations. Individual

software or web sites are checked in a detailed fashion, and learning

processes are suggested, as well as students' functions, teachers' functions,

and learning assessment. There are referencesand questions included after

each chapter, and at the end an index is included. But I do not recommend

using this book as a textbook in a course on the introduction of technological

education for students with restricted experience in technology. But if

students are already experienced in technology this book can enable them to

pay careful attention to the function of technology in the classroom.

) D H Jonassen, K L Peck, B G Wilson Special Education (1999)

3-The class community of learning

The prevalent opinion today on constructive teaching: teaching- learning

processes and assessment will take place in a constructivist class, when the

class "is a community of learners" involved in these actions: in open

dialogue and in thinking- data collection, drawing conclusions and

generalizations; in joint presentation for the sake of structuring the

knowledge; in tasks of research of meaning, in encouragement and in

reflective abstraction- discussion, writing and drawing; in raising subversive

ideas in context with a realistic context; in subverting the balance enabling

learning, by means of raising many possibilities, not questions and

hypotheses of knowledge; uniformity, and especially by means of

illumination of contradictions; in fostering a rich environment in activity

fostering development (Glazerfeld, 1997); in study of the environment rich

in technology (Heller and Gordon, 1996; Granon- Brooks, Brooks, 1997)

there needs to be assessment in this context. There is none (Posnet, 1996;

Salomon, 1997).

For constructive teaching- learning the teaching is done by contemplation of

students working with assessment differentiated from the teaching, the

assessment is done by means of interactivity of the students and by means of

a dialogue between the teacher and the student. Assessment of ideas and

materials, in observation of activity the teacher "should peek at the

importance of the students, see the cognitive connections in this form

enabling usually structuring of knowledge- in fact both of them learn as a

result of the assessment". One should ask questions which have more than

one answer, questions which arouse thinking in the choice of tasks for

assessment in problems requiring interdisciplinary investigation, in tasks

requiring creative use of a variety of materials; one should use realistic

judgment. It is recommended to refrain from questions which have "correct"

or "incorrect" answers. Answers and tasks from this type damage the

students' thinking, cancel it and encourage learning by way of personal

knowledge (Brooks, Ibid.). They do not expose the cognitive difficulties of

the student before the teacher (Granon- Brooks).

This change in the field of reference amongst the rest of the changes which

took place in the field of educational thinking in recent years, took

place:from a selective education system to a system promoting" 1 the

existing of variance between the students, the change expressed in the title.

According to this approach, one should consider variance between the

students. (Aloni, N. 1994, within: core program, p. 21). The variance in

types of action is expressed amongst others in learning styles:

in constructive teaching which was found suitable for changes which took

place in the world following the use of technology whose contribution was

in the introduction of the internet to the field of education when the

knowledge passed from the possession of the educators and adults to the

children and to every seeker; the monopoly on the knowledge was finished,

the option was opened before the students to reach by a click all the sources

of knowledge.

This situation pushed the student to investigate everything they would want,

characterized by a quick growth of bodies of knowledge in our period, called

in the present discourse the post- modern period. The knowledge existing

today in many fields can change as our students will be forced to cope with

problems which were not learnt at school. The knowledge is not perceived

as final and absolute.

The capacity to learn independently whilst directing "the abilities required

for successful functioning, characterizing both the capacity to solve new

problems whilst using previous or self- knowledge, and the capacity to think,

to consider and adapt to new situations, is the development of these abilities

with the learner" (Birnbaum, 1977, p.12) in recent years the awareness grew

of the importance of knowledge and the conceptions which the pre- learning

process students bring with them, these subjects rose on the educational

agenda following studies which were done in the United States, and they

showed unambiguously that even after the students are exposed to the

learning process they continue to hold faulty conceptions.

Accordingly it is important to develop a recognition that the students do not

come to the study benches with an empty burden of knowledge, thus it is

important to see the students as those who accumulated experience and

insights during the years of their life, and they continue to adapt them and

develop them also whilst they learn, within the school walls and outside

them.

Thus in planning the teaching learning process it is important, therefore, to

bring into account a number of basic assumptions

1. Learners reach the formal education system with knowledge, with

conceptions and with emotional experiences on many subjects in science

and technology, which are the result of their personal experience in

phenomena and events connected to these fields.

2. These beliefs and conceptions are immune to a great extent from

traditional teaching methods.

3. These conceptions and beliefs are not characteristics of a certain place

and time, but are widespread with students of different ages, with various

capacities belonging to different nations.

4. The process of learning is an active and adaptive process executed

constantly by the learners.

According to the constructivist approach to teaching and learning, in the

process of structuring the knowledge learners are influenced by the

knowledge base, by the conceptions, former beliefs and positions, and thus

the previous knowledge undergoes change in every learning process in

general, and in particular in science and technology, the reason for change in

knowledge happens following the creation of another meaning for

knowledge and there are cases that knowledge is abandoned totally. Hence,

it is possible to conclude according to these approaches, that learning is not

only a supplement or reduction of details but change and adaptation which

the learner must undergo when he adopts new concepts and views of life.

On the other hand by abandoning alternative concepts, it is possible to say

that knowledge is temporary, developmental and subjective, and it is built

internally with the learners and can pass to others in a cultural and social

way. In the learning process the teacher must supply opportunities to

learners in order to summon a search for regularity, asking questions,

structuring personal models and according to this conception it is possible to

define learning: as an interaction between old and new conceptions which

are structured following the experience which the learners undergo, every

verbal or non- verbal occurrence is explained with the learner according to

his system of values, beliefs, conceptions, thus these facts constitute a proof

of the huge importance which the conceptions of students before learning

have. Thus early identification of the conceptions of the students can help

teachers to summon a learning process which can structure changes in the

faulty conceptions (Bell, 1985; Driver & Erickson, 1983)

"How to they make learning constructive 3-1

"How to they make learning constructive constructivism is an overall name

for a sociological pedagogic philosophical, linguistic and methodological

approach, a claim common to all these approaches is that knowledge is built

and is not transferred or created, there is no doubt that a very comprehensive

argument is concerned here which is explained and interpreted in many

ways. Constructivism is considered as a very fluid mixture of theories and

ideologies (Harpaz, 2000) which it is impossible to derive from the

constructivist strategic approach on teaching, despite what was stated. It is

important for constructivists to take an interest in erroneous conceptions of

students and to describe their ways of thinking;similarly it is important for

them to know that Piaget's work is considered as part of the constructivist

heritage; the psychological stream is considered as having the greatest

significance in the field of teaching and learning; constructivism deals with

the question how students learn, and an answer to this question is found in

the assumption that knowledge is not transferred or created but it is built in

the consciousness of the learner with the help of concepts and patterns which

are found in our consciousness. This approach was found absolutely contrary

to the behaviorist approach which sees in the learner an absorber of stimuli

and reaction, it is important to note that although Piaget was considered as

the greatest founder of this approach is used at the time, using a vocabulary

from which only a few words from sound like useful words , Dr. Yehieli,in.

In the modern constructivist approach ( .2008 ) modern constructivism

deals with learning and not with teaching.

- 1 The argument of constructivism that knowledge is not transferred by

built by patterns is contrary to the thinking of Beck (1999) and also contrary

to the conception of the teacher as a conveyor deals with this contrast and

said that anyone who thinks that the learner is like a blank page, and learning

takes place by one side which broadcasts and another side which absorbs

which is mentally ill, he offers to make a change in the conception, that only

one side broadcasts and claims that both sides need to be active and the side

which was considered as absorber does not absorb but builds the knowledge ,

Harpaz (2008)

The concept "learning" has many definitions which match the thoughts of

education researchers one of which is: learning is defined as behavioral

change as a result of the experience of the learner. Behavioral change can be

explicit (change in eating habits for example) or tacit change (in knowledge,

in positions in thoughts, or in emotions). Experience is experience which the

person experiences in his contact with the world (phenomena, people,

objects). Many theories exist describing different models for the learning

process.

In this paragraph we will concentrate on the constructivist theory which

sees, in learning a process during which the learner builds his knowledge as

to the world in which he lives. The knowledge which we accumulate is

organized in complex schemas connected one to another. Learning means a

search for tools which will help us to understand our experiences. When we

encounter an idea, an object or a new phenomenon, we try to interpret the

new experience and to adapt it to knowledge or the array of rules which we

accumulated until now. Existing knowledge is the basis according to which

we interpret the new experience, and the interpretation which we accumulate

adds and changes the existing knowledge,that is, the schemas which we

created according to the accumulation of new knowledge. The more we

learn, the interpretation which they gave to phenomena in the past changes

and is updated according to the new experiences (Brooks and Brooks, 1997).

In other words, the knowledge of the learner is created in a process of

assimilation (shaping of new knowledge for existing knowledge structures)

and in a process of adaptation (change of the schema so that it will match the

new knowledge which was accumulated). this process described as

recursive, a process in which existing knowledge helps to build new

knowledge which becomes the existing knowledge described.

4-2 The process of structuring knowledge and its arrangement in our

brain

Constructivism- learning theory and educational philosophy and its

implementation in a "media+" environment.

According to Kromholtz N. Idea Center Tel Aviv University learning is a

process in which the learner is involved actively and builds the knowledge

and his understandings

The opinion of Jean Piaget is considered as a central opinion on this subject,

he was, a Swiss biologist and developmental- cognitive psychologist, who

was active in the first half of the twentieth century. He investigated tens of

children including his private children, in his investigation he focused on the

following points

1. The mechanism with whose help the learner acquires knowledge, creates

it and expands it- that is, the learning mechanism.

2. How and where the child organizes the world which he experiences

similarly he focused in his investigation on logical structures in which the

knowledge is stored.

Piaget claimed that learning is a process in which the learner is actively

involved; he builds the knowledge and his understandings. In his claim, all

of learning is done by the learner, building in his brain the learnt concepts.

Thus according to this approach a person cannot transfer knowledge to

another person.

Knowledge is built in the brain of the learner on the basis of his experiences

and understandings of reality. In order to give the experience meaning, the

person has to build the knowledge- to build an abstract product in his mind.

Accordingly learning is considered as:

1. Building of an abstract conceptual product,

2. It is executed by the learner on the basis of experiences in the physical-

external world, and/ or in interaction with people.

3. A synthesis of new experiences and of previous understandings.

Piaget assumed that mental structures exist in the brain of the person,

constituting an infrastructure for the various actions involved in the building

of new knowledge. This conception of Piaget of the brain of the person

recalls the cogitation of the German philosopher Emmanuel Kant (1924-

1804). Kant was the first thinker in the modern era who raised the possibility

of the existence of basic thinking patterns in the brain of the person- patterns

found in the brain before any learning. According to Kant, the knowledge

we have on the world is created thanks to a combination of the action of two

factors:

1. Personal- sensory experience- everything that is experienced before and

during the things.

Logical analysis- is done after, or following, the experience -2

As it was mentioned above, in recent years there has been unanimity that

there is no escape from change of the teaching method from a teacher

centered one to a teaching method in which the student becomes active, and

the teacher will accept the job of instructor. In this situation all types of

varied proposals for change are created (part of the proposed changes were

executed unsuccessfully in the past due to absence of preparedness on the

part of the teachers). In this spirit there is a clear recommendation to

teachers in Israel and in the world to teach with a constructivist teaching

method. Under these circumstances we (in the year 2010) decided to

examine the connection between a teaching method and students

achievements and this is in fact one of the main reasons for this study, which

was designed to prove the great benefit of the use of a constructivist teaching

method to the student and to the teacher.

The study was carried out in two high schools, the Kabiya High School in

which the experiment was made- the number of students who participated in

the study was 100 students (N=100) from two 11th grade and two 10 th grade

classes, the number of students in the control high school Bosmat Tivon

High School is identical to that in the trial school, the opening marks of both

schools are identical, the implementation of the study started on the

15.10.13, the end of the study was on 10.2.14.

As mentioned the matter of the study was implementation of the following

constructivist learning principles: 1- Recognition of the perceptions of the

students of the study contents, therefore the teachers will ask the students

what is known to them on the study subject in order to find faulty

perceptions and to treat them. 2- Personal experience, and cooperative and

active learning. 3- Learning around bunches from the whole to the part and

connection of the study subjects to big ideas. 4- Teaching lessons in which

there is use of thinking strategies (there are other principles which are

recorded in the literature survey which were not implemented in the study

due to difficulties expected in isolation of variables).

The implementation of the study continued for four months, the

implementation in the first month served also for the sake of close

instruction for the teacher who implements the study, a teacher who teaches

in 10th grade, and 11th grades at a school in which the experiment is carried

out. In order to achieve the goals of the study, two stages were executed, a

quantitative one and a qualitative one.

At the end of the study we delivered a contents test on the digestive system

in 11th grades and on the subject of ecology in 10th grades), the results of the

tests showed a significant connection between the study method and the

students' achievements [p<0.001***], hereby the first study conjecture was

corroborated.

The contents test which we delivered to students included two segments a

first segment included knowledge questions and a second part included

questions which necessitate a thinking strategy, the results showed that the

average of experiment classes was higher but the connection did not come

out as significant (no significant statistical difference between the control

group and the experiment group in higher order thinking [t(99)= -0.056,

n.s.]) and thereby the results did not confirm the second study conjecture.

In addition to the contents test the students were asked to fill in a

questionnaire, in order to answer the study question if there exists a

connection between the teaching method and the students' perception of the

significant learning process in which they gained experience? The results

showed a significant connection and thereby they confirmed the third study

conjecture: [t(99)=3.002, p<0.01**].

In the fourth study conjecture: what is the connection between the teaching

method and positions of students towards the science teachers and the study

method generally? The results showed a significant connection between the

teaching method and the students' positions and thereby the fourth study

conjectures was confirmed: [t(99)= 4.41, p<0.001***].

On a secondary study question: is there a connection between the sex of the

students and their achievements? No significant connection was found.

Qualitative analysis

In an interview with the teacher who executed the study it was found that

she was happy from the execution of the study as the motivation of the

students rose and likewise also their achievements, in addition to this she

said that she will continue to teach by the new teaching method even after

the end of the study.

Recommendations

To summarize, the study results confirmed that teaching according to the

constructivist approach, which is represented by the principles which were

implemented in the study, advanced the significant learning process and thus

the students' achievements rose, likewise the students' positions improved

positively and significantly towards their teachers and towards the science

lessons in which we implemented the study, finally there is no doubt that the

results of the study showed how important it is to teach by a teaching

method according to the constructivist approach, but in order to pass to this

teaching method there is no escape from exposing the teachers to experience

in this approach for a period of months, as only by gaining experience will

they know how much they are contributed to and contribute.

better, and our work will be easier and more satisfying.























they know how much they are contributed to and contribute better, and our

work will be easier and more satisfying.













Recommendation

1- It is important to connect the students to community life, for example

as part of the European states which combine studies and work in

factories, for junior high school students in that field which the

students choose, as in this way there will be true gaining of experience

and they will not need to see only illustrations in the laboratory or

short experience.

2- Not to cease from finding the balance point between the ambitions of

the student in the twenty- first century (and more precisely in the year

2014) and in every year which will come, and ambitions of the

education system at a national and world level, that is to stay with the

finger on the pulse as we are found in experience which we did not

choose, experience in which the knowledge is piled up and without us

wanting it huge quantities of knowledge are open before our beloved

(our children), until now we saw huge progress in technological and

scientific development, but from an educational point of view we felt

an almost total disconnection between the parents and children.

Therefore we need to strive first of all to bring material to our students

which is relevant to their lives starting from junior school

simultaneously with teaching reading and writing until high school in

which the study should be adapted to students, so that each student

will choose what suits him and will continue in it in universities.

(These recommendations are referred to the education authorities in

Israel and in the world)






short experience.























short experience.














:BIBLIOGRAPHY

1- Amir, I. (1994). Alternative learning methods in the mirror of integration

and the heterogeneous class. Within: I. Rich and R. Ben- Ari (Eds.),

Teaching Methods for a Heterogeneous Class (pp. 217 -231). Even- Yehuda:

Reches.

2 - Applebee, AN (1993). Literature in the secondary school: Studies of

curriculum and instruction in the United Belenky, MF, Clinchy,

BM:BOSTON States. Urbana, Il: National Council of Teachers of English.

3 -Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J.D. & Hanesian, H (1978). Educational

Psychology A Cognitive View. 2nd edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart &

Winston.

4-Ari (1996) living in a learning socity : life histories identities and

education. ,famir press , finland

5-Armstrong, T. (1996), The many intelligences in class. Out of the Branco

Weiss Institute for fostering thinking.

6- Aronson, E. Stephan, C. Sikes, J. Blaney, N. & Snapp, M.(1978). The

Jigsaw Classroom. Beverley Hills, CA.: Sage Publication.

. 7-Bar- El, Z. (1996), Educational psychology. Reches Publications,

Educational projects.

8- Beck, Sh. (1999) On several of the problems of radical constructivism-

limitations of learning the research. Dapim 29, 10-27

9- Ben Ari mordechai .constructivism smk,in computer in mathematics

scinse teaching 20 (2001)454-73

10-Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1985). "Cognitive coping strategies and

the problem of inert knowledge", in S. S. Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R.

Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills, Vol 2: Current research and open

questions (pp. 65-80). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

11-Birnbaum M. (1997), Alternatives in assessment of achievements.

Ramot: Tel- Aviv University.

Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (Eds.). (1991). The challenge of problem-based

learning . 12 new York: St. Martin's Press

13- Bringuier, Z. (1988) Human learning: conversations with Piaget.

Jerusalem: Keter

14- Brooks. J. N. Brooks, M.N. (1997). Towards constructivist teaching in

the search for understanding. Branco Weiss Institute for development of

thinking, Jerusalem, Israel.

15-Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., Vye, N. J., & Sherwood, R. D. (1989).

"New approaches to instruction: Because wisdom can't be told", in S.

Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp.

470-497). New York: Cambridge University Press.

16- B rooks ,Jacqueline Gernnon ( 1999 ).in search of understanding

17- Carmon, A. (2000). Constructivist pedagogy and the organization of

school knowledge- abstract

16-Cook, J. (1992). Negotiating the curriculum: Programming for learning.

In G. Boomer, N. Lester, C.

18- Dr. Carmela Nesher The education Q "The interest of teaching is less

in what teachers do and more in what they their students to do" Parkins

(1992

19-Carretero, M., & Voss., J. F. (Eds.). (1994). Cognitive and instructional

processes in history and the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

20-Clement, J. (1993). "Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to

deal with students' preconceptions in physics", in Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 30(10), 1241-1257.

21- Dreyfus, A. and Jungwirth A. (1992). The strategy of cognitive conflict

as a means for change of the conceptions of the student:- implications,

difficulties and problems. The bulleting for biology teachers, 130, 10-29.

22- Dewey, J. (1909). The Child and the Curriculum. Chicago, IL: The

University of Chicago Press

23- Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The

MacMillan Comp Any.

24-Deutsch, M. (1968).Cooperation and trust. Some theoretical notes. In:

-Damon, W. (1984). Peer education: The untapped potential. Journal of

Applied Developmental Psychology, 5, 331-343

24-ducational philosophy and its appliKromholtz, N. (2000). Learning

theory and ecation in the environment. "Media +" "Idea Center", Tel- Aviv

University

25-Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (Eds.). Constructivism and the

technology of instruction:A conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Feuerstein, R. and Feuerstein, Sh. (1993). Gaining experience in mediated

learning: theoretical survey. In Sdeh Hemed, 36 (A-B), 7-50.

26- FerP. (1981), Pedagogy of Depressed People, Mefaresh: Tel Aviv.

27 -Fuchs, A. and Hertz- Lazerovitch, R. (1987). Shaping a policy of change

at school- foci in the work process of the headmaster. Jerusalem: the

Ministry of Education and Culture, and Haifa University.

28- (Garton, Spain,.Lamberson, &.Spiers, 2010, Grasha

29-Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how

schools should teach. New York: Basic Books.

30-Gentner, D., & Stevens, A. L. (Eds.). (1983). Mental models. Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum.

31- (Garton, Spain,.Lamberson, &.Spiers, 2010, Grasha

33-GOLDFATHER’PENNY (1999) learning trough childrens eyes ‘

electronic n resource :sociale constructivism ,and the desire to le . American

psychological association, washingtone, USA

34- Goldberger, NR & ,Tarule, JM (1986). Women's ways of

Development of self, voice, and mindBentley, AF & Dewey, J. (1949 .)

Knowing and the known . Beacon Press.

35- Giroux, H. (1986). The politics of schooling and culture. Orbit, 17 (4),

10-11.

36-Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how

schools should teach, New-York: Basic Books.

37-Glazerfeld, A. (1997) "A constructivist approach to teaching", within:

Education for thinking, booklet 8, Branco Weiss Institute for Fostering

thinking.

38- Hertz- Lazerovitch, R. Fuchs, A. (1992). Shaping of a policy of change

at school: foci in the work process of the headmaster. Jerusalem: the

Ministry of Education and

Culture, and Haifa University.

39- Harpaz, I. (2000). Teaching and learning in a thinking community

from a constructivist viewpoint. Printout in Branco Weiss Publications,

Jerusalem.

40- Harpaz, I. (2000b). Towards teaching and learning in a thinking

community. Education thinking 18, pp. 6-31.

41- Holt, G.. (1974). How children fail. Ramat- Gan: Masada

42-Hofer, B. K. & Pintrich, P. R. (1997).The h-59 Hertz- Lazerovitch, R.

(1997). Innovative pedagogy- collection of articles. Haifa University- the

Faculty for Education

Development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about Studies in

technology issue 31 (December 1999)

43- Hofer B. K. & Pintrich P. R. (2002). Personal epistemology: The

psychology of

Dr Izak, Itzhak (2005). The theory of teaching. The contradictory logics.

44- inquiry accessible to all", Minstrell J. L. & E. H. Van-Zee (Eds.),

Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science. Washington. DC:

American Association for the Advancement of Science, pp.331-370

45- Inbar, D. E. (1996). The Free Educational Prison: Metaphors and

Images. Educational Research, 38 (1), 1-16.

46-M.R.Jones (Ed.) Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 10, 275-320 Lee.

47 –jonessan .david(1999).learning with technology :a , constructivist

perspective

Chariese memill .hong kong,china

48- Jonassen D. H., K L Peck, B G Wilson (1999) Special Education

Volume: 16, Issue: 1, Publisher: Prentice Hall

49 - Jan Amos Comenius, 1592-1670.

50- Regev, H. and Shimoni, Sh. (2008). To talk mathematics- why? How?

Alah- bulletin for mathematics teachers 25, 77-89/

51 - Rousseau Jean Jacques, 1712-1778. (1762). Emiel.

52- Kelly, GA (1991). The psychology of personal constructs: Volume one -

A theory of personality . London :Routledge.

53-Kelly, G. A. (1955). The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York:

Norton and Company.

54- Knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning", Review of

Educational

Lindfors, J. (1984). How children learn or how teachers teach? A profound

confusion. Language Arts, 61 (6) 606-600 )

55- Newcomb and Trefz, )1987(; Cano, )1988(; Pickford,1988)

56 -Langer, J & .Applebee, AN (1987 .) How writing shapes thinking: A

study of teaching and learning

54-Lester, NB & On ore, CS (1990 .)Learning Change: One school district

meets language across the curriculum .Portsmith, NH: Boynton/Cook

Publisher

55 - Levy A. (1996), Alternative assessment: compilation of cases studies.

Mofet Institut the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport

56 -Levy A. (1997), "A post- modern approach to assessment of educational

achievements", within: Mifne 17.

57- Levin, T. Nevo, I. (1996), "The future junior school as the reality of

life", Within: The up to date school, from complex experience to a

challenging future, Mikraa: The Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport

58-Lam, Zvi (1973). The contradictory logics in teaching. Sifriat Hapoalim,

Tel Aviv.

59-Langer, J. (1992). (Ed .).Literature Instruction: A focus on student

response. Urbana, Il: National Council of Teachers of English.

60-Mofet Institute, (based on intervention programs in the junior high

school) Tel Aviv University, the School for Education (2001)

61-McCloskey, M. (1983). "Naive theories of motion", in D. Gentner, & A.

L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 299-324). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

62- Maslow, A.(1971). Toward a psychology of Being, Van Nostrand.

Rogers, C.R. (1973). On encounter group, N.Y. Harper and Row

63- McNeil, L. (1986). Contradictions of control: school structure and

school knowledge. New York: Routledge.

64- Mezirow and Associates (1990), Fostering critical reflection in

adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning (1-20). San

Francisco :Jossey-Bass Publishers.

65- Neal, A.S. (1977). "Sumerhill". Jerusalem: second printing

66 - ( Nahmias, Mioduser and Forkos, 2009). Only some of them rely on

benefits (and incorporate innovative teaching

method/chais2011/.../nissim_ben_zvi.pptx

67-Novak, J. D. & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

68- Onore & ,J. Cook. (Eds.), (1992), Negotiating the curriculum: Educating

for the 21st century (pp. 15- London: The Falmer Press

69- Nussbaum, I., (1999). The structure of material- vacuum and particles:

a book for the student. Rehovot: Weitzman Institute, Matmon Project.

70- Nussbaum, I. and Yehieli, T. (1998). Misconceptions and conceptual

change in teaching sciences (Second Edition). Tel- Aviv: Mofet Institute

71 -Piaget, J. (1972). The world conception of the child. Sifriat Hapoalim

Perkins. D., "The Many Faces of Constructivism," in Educational

Leadership, Vol. 57, No. 3, November 1999, pp. 6-1

72- Piaget, Z. (1969). The Worldview of the child. Tel Aviv: Sifriat

Hapoalim

73- Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of

cognitive structures. (A. Rosin, Trans). New York :The Viking Pres

74. Phillips, D. C. (1995). "The good, the bad constructivism", in

Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5-12.

75- Perkins, D. N. & Salomon G. (1989). "Are Cognitive Skills Context-

Bound?" Educational Research218 (1), pp. 16-25

76-Perkins, D. N. (1992). Smart Schools: From training memories to

educating minds. New-York: The Free Press.

77). An apple for education. Teaching and Learning for Understanding.(

1993 Elam lectur Glassboro, New Jersey:

78- Posnet, K. (1996), "Constructivism: Psychological theory of learning",

within

Education fo Thinking, booklet 8, Branco Weiss Institute for development

79 -Perkins. D., "The Many Faces of Constructivism, " in Educational

Leadership, Vol. 80, No. 3, November( 1999), pp. 6-11

81- Prof. Bernstein G. Time to think, Issue 67. (2002).

82-Perkins, D. N. (1992a). Smart schools: From training memories to

educating minds. New York: Free Press.

83-Perkins, D. N. (1992b). "What constructivism demands of the learner", in

T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.). Constructivism and the technology of

instruction: A conversation (pp. 161-165). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

84-Pollak, Sarah and Dr. First, Zvika. Part A. The logic of the school and the

logics of teaching. M.T.H.- The Center for Educational Technology.

85-Reddy, M. (1979). The Conduit Metaphor. In: A. Ortony (Ed.). Metaphor

and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

86-Roth, W. M. (1993). In the Name of Constructivism: Science Education

Research and the Construction of Local Knowledge. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 30, 799-803.

87- Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader ,the text, the poem: The transactional

theory of the literary work. Carbondale ,Il: Southern Illinois University

Press.

88-Rosenblatt, L. (1938). Literature as exploration . New York; London: D.

Appleton- Century.

89- Resnick, L. (1987). Education and Learning to Think, Washington DC:

National Academy Press.

90- Rosso, A. (2000). New trends in teaching- learning contents, teachers

and learners.

91-Reigeluth, C. (Ed.). (1999). Instructional design theories and models:

Volume II.

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

92-10-Sharan, Sh. And Sharan, I. (1975). Teaching in small groups, Shocken

Publications, Tel- Aviv.

93- Shakespeare, W. Julius Caesar. In R. Gill (Ed.), (1979), Oxford School

Shakespeare. London: Oxford University Press

95 -Salomon, G. (1997). Innovative constructivist learning environments:

issues for study. Education for thinking 11-12 pp. 27-41.

96- Slavin, R. E. (1983). Cooperative Learning. New- York: Longman

Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

97-Saskatchewan Education . (1984 .) Directions. The Author

98 - Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in

cognition: extending human intelligence with intelligence technologies.

Educational Researcher. 20 (3), 2-9.

99-Sheridan, D. (1993). Teaching 1-secondary English: Readings and

applications. New York: Longman.

100- Smith, K. (1993). Becoming the " guide" on the side. Educational

Leadership, 51(2), 35- 37

101- Strauss, S. and Shiloni, T. (1997). Models which teachers have on the

intelligence and on the learning of children. Thinking education 11.

102-Swartz, R.J. & Parks, S. (1994). Infusing the teaching of critical and

creative thinking into content instruction, Pacific Grove, Ca: Critical

Thinking Books & Software

103-Solomon, J. (1994). The Rise and Fall of Constructivism. Studies in

Science Ed 104 -Salomon, G. (1997). Innovative constructivist learning

environments: issues for study. Education for thinking 11-12 pp. 27-41.

Strauss, S. and Shiloni, T. (1997). Models which teachers have on the

intelligence and on the learning of children. Thinking education 11.

ucation, 23, 1-19.

105 -Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1996). "Problem-based learning: An

instructional model and its constructivist framework", in B. G. Wilson

(Ed.) Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional

design (pp. 130-143). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology

Publications.

106-Strike, K. A. (1987). Toward A Coherent Constructivism. In: H. Helm

& J. D. Novak (Eds.) Proceeding of the Second International Seminar on

Misconceptions, Cornell University, V. 1, 481-489.

107- Twomey Fosnot, C. (1989). Enquir teachers, enquiring learners: A

constructivist approach for teaching

108-Dr. Tami Yehieli February( 2008) "How to they make learning

constructive" The Echo of Education, volume issue 4 Arad A 5768, pp. 40-

44.

109-von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical Constructivism: A Way of

Knowing and Learning. London: The Falmer Press.

110- Vygotsky, L. S., (1978). Mind in society: The Development of

Higher Psychological processes

111- Yehieli, T. Hed Hahinukh (2008): (4) 82: 40-44.

112 - Vygotsky, L. S., (1962), Thought and Language, The I.M.T. Press,

Cambridge, Massachusetts

113 Williams, T. (1945). The glass menagerie. New York: New Directions

Books

(1962). To kill a mockingbird. New York: Fawcett Popular ibrary

114-White, B. Y. & Frederiksen, J. R. (2000). "Metacognition facilitation:

An approach to making scientific

115 - Wilson, B. G. (Ed.). (1996). Constructivist learning environments:

Case studies in

instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology

Publications.

116- Wiske, M. S. (Ed.). (1998). Teaching for understanding: Linking

research with practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

117 Yehieli, T. and Nussbaum, I. (1999). The structure of material-

vacuum and particles: guide for the teacher. Rehovot: Weitzman Institute:

Matmon Project.

118- Young Michael FD ( 2008(BRINGING KNOW LEDGE back in from

social constructivism to cocial relesim in the sociology of eduction.

Routledge- :The case for constructivist class rooms. association for

supervision

and curriculum development uSA

119- Zemelman, S., Daniels, H & ,.5- Hyde, A. (1993). Best practice: New

standards for teaching and learning in America's schools

1120- Zohar, A. & David, A.B. (2008). "Explicit teaching of meta-strategic

knowledge in authentic classroom situations", Metacognition and Learning,

3(1), pp. 59-82.

121- Zohar, A. (2007). A pedagogic horizon for learning. Ministry of

Education Director- General's Circular 67/8 (a)

.

ALEXANDRU IOAN CUZAUNIVERSITYphdthesis.uaic.ro/PhDThesis/Shibly, Zouheir, The... · Stintific...

Documents

Transcript of ALEXANDRU IOAN CUZAUNIVERSITYphdthesis.uaic.ro/PhDThesis/Shibly, Zouheir, The... · Stintific...